Schrödinger's Feminism

You could argue that accepting the fact that human beings are sexual animals in exactly the same way as baboons or elephants are is to accept the human condition and human nature for what it is. Men are animals, women are animals the only difference from other creatures that are animals being that we know  we are animals. Accepting things for what they are is usually a wise thing to do and, it could also be argued, one of the bases of conservatism – adjusting to reality and nature as it is. In this sense, conservatism is actually nothing at all.

In spite of this, when it comes to the women at the Presidents’ Ball or the women on the grid in F1 or on the oche in darts competitions we suddenly get high-minded and feel we are above the open sexual display which one gender of other 'lower' animals usually indulges in. It involves the base ‘objectification’ of women (who, nevertheless, seem to be perfectly capable of projecting their personalities while disporting themselves thus).

And yet, when Myleene Klass gets her kit off in the Sun or Billy Piper appears in “Diary of a Call Girl” it’s all about celebration and ‘empowerment.’ This might seem to suggest that, suddenly, we are back to accepting that women have a sexually gendered role in a sexually reproducing species and that we should enjoy observing the sexual signals their bodies give off. It's all part of rejoicing in the glory of life after all and we wouldn't want to be prudish would we?

So, it seems, when it suits us, we can entertain two utterly conflicting narratives at the same time. It was interesting to see Camilla Long in the Sunday Times recently suggesting that, perhaps, all that is going on here is good old-fashioned evolutionary competition. If beautiful working class girls can be kept out of the race with high-minded moral strictures, then that’s a few less for the middle class and the luvvie class women to compete with. Cynical and pragmatic in the final analysis and oh so 'survival of the fittest.'